Shortest Honeymoon in history.

[mprice.livejournal.com]

The media is already whining that the Anointed One isn't playing nice anymore. Please feel free to laugh and point along with me. Emphasis mine, my comments in (bold)

AP, Reuters, AFP Refuse to Distribute Obama White House Photo

Thursday, January 22, 2009 12:30 AM

NEW YORK -- Three news agencies refused to distribute White House-provided photos of President Barack Obama in the Oval Office on Wednesday, arguing that access should have been provided to news photographers.

The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse said the White House was breaking with long-standing tradition in not allowing news photographers to capture the president at work in the Oval Office on his first day. (News Flash to the media. He promised you change!)

"We are not distributing what are, in effect, visual press releases," said Michael Oreskes, managing editor for U.S. news at the AP. (It's not fair!)

The news agencies have used White House-provided images in the past for areas in the White House where media access is generally not permitted, such as the Situation Room or the private residence. But they contend that the Oval Office is the public office of the president and photographers should have access rather than rely on a government handout.

"Using these photos would be a major break with established precedent and would compromise the long-held tradition of independent photo coverage of the president and the White House by the major news agencies," said Courtney Dolan, spokeswoman for Thomson Reuters.

There was no immediate reply to e-mail and phone messages left with Obama representatives.

The White House later released a photograph of the president retaking the oath of office with Chief Justice John Roberts, which the AP also rejected.

Vincent Amaluy, director of photography for North and South America for AFP, said he suspected first-day confusion was more at play than an attempt to clamp down on access. (Anyone out there wanna bet on it?)

"We are hopeful of negotiating an amicable solution," Oreskes said. (Just keep drinking that Kool aid, gang.)

Comments

[shezan.livejournal.com]

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm with Obama on this one....

[mprice.livejournal.com]

I guess if you're going to agree with him on something, it should be something important. ;-D

[tigress35.livejournal.com]

Honestly, this actually is an important issue. If you have the President's peeps approving literally everything that is taken of him and not allowing anyone else, then that's a pretty big form of censorship and violation of free speech. I mean, it's very communistic if you really think about it.

[momm2five.livejournal.com]

photographers should have access rather than rely on a government handout.

Huh . . . kind of like the rest of the Democrats??

[mprice.livejournal.com]

My thoughts exactly.

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

Man, Tammy Bruce was right -- nothing makes a liberal/leftist happy. They're usually pissed off and have to complain on something, especially so... trivial.

Oh, boo frickin' hoo.

That said, I'll second shezan, here.

[mprice.livejournal.com]

Wasn't there an article just the other day about how much better Obama was at dealing with the media than Bush?

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

You mean, like, every article? Heh.

[tigress35.livejournal.com]

Honestly, this actually is an important issue. If you have the President's peeps approving literally everything that is taken of him and not allowing anyone else, then that's a pretty big form of censorship and violation of free speech. I mean, it's very communistic if you really think about it.

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but it isn't like the press would turn against Obama, yet, but I do agree that they shouldn't be allowed 'full access,' at all.

I blame the Hollywood mentality that accompanies Obama, at times. It's completely on him, but there it is.

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

I meant, "not completely on him, but there..."

Sorry.

[mprice.livejournal.com]

When will we see the Obama vs Paparazzi?

[tigress35.livejournal.com]

I truly can't understand your logic of not being allowed full access. It would be very easy to cover up (ie not release) any pictures of something not favorable to Obama. I'm not talking about an unflattering picture of him, that's penny change, but maybe he would choose not to release a picture of him veto-ing a bill that would make him unpopular in doing so? Or countless other scenarios the American people and the world should be able to see from FREE PRESS. If you limit the pictures we see inside the White House to just the one official photographer, you are limiting the free press and IMO, violating the first amendment in doing so.

And the press, ultimately, wants to sell pictures and stories, regardless of how much they like the current president, so it has nothing to do with turning against him.

[dark-weezing.livejournal.com]

I don't know why Obama is cutting them off, ask him. I agree with you, but there is that pesky fear of secret info, or shall we have a redux of NY Times releasing that terrorist info last year?

You're also right that the media's ultimate desire is the bottom line. However, with the Obama euphoria, expect many rules to change and standards to collapse, along the way.

And with some of these people, logic doesn't always apply.

[slm76.livejournal.com]

The new Press person sure didn't do a good job of explaining why the press didn't get to see the do-over. He said the room wouldn't have held everyone. I guess 3 additional people (from AP, Reuters and AFP) were 3 too many. I had no idea that the Map Room was that small *g*

[mprice.livejournal.com]

That has to be it! It could be that's he like every other despot who casts off the minions that got them into power.

[slm76.livejournal.com]

I guess size really does matter ;)

[mprice.livejournal.com]

(http://s9.photobucket.com/albums/a82/fullprice/Random%20Stuff/?action=view&current=win.gif)